Apple is attacking Android by proxy. Apple is suing hardware manufacturers for iphone ideas stolen by Google and incorporated into Android. This link lists 20 patent violations that Apple is suing HTC over. Most are Android violations by Google, some are HTC hardware violations. Scroll down on the page to see details. Courts have not yet ruled on all of these claims.

If Android had violated (or stolen since that's what many people here are implying) that many of Apple's patents, then why are we not seeing a single lawsuit by Apple against Google? It would make more sense would it not? Why the need to waste time and go for proxies? It's Google themselves whom developed Android after all. It would be an easy win too since Android is clearly without a doubt, a stolen product according to Lord Jobs. And why isn't Schmidt prosecuted for violating his NDA and what amounts to corporate espionage from his stint at the Apple Board?

I keep hearing the same lines over and over again revolving around how Android stole everything from Apple. But until one of you can satisfactory explain to me as to why Apple isn't going after Google directly after basically copying everything, it will always be a baseless and unsubstantiated claim.

If Android had violated (or stolen since that's what many people here are implying) that many of Apple's patents, then why are we not seeing a single lawsuit by Apple against Google? It would make more sense would it not?

Because Google were careful to craft a tale and stick to it about how they happened to acquire Android and get into the phone business. And, clearly, the tale of the acquisition of Android is a just so story that strains credibility.

First of all, the "fact", so often pointed to by Google apologists that Google acquired Android a couple of years (really about 1.5 years) before Apple announced the iPhone is a pretty weak defense at best. It implies that Apple didn't actually start development of the iPhone until the announcement, which is, of course, absurd.

Clearly (and supported by statements made by Steve Jobs) they were working on the technology that became the iPhone for years before its announcement. In fact, a little more than two years seems about the right amount of lead time between deciding they were going to release a phone and having it ready to release.

Clearly, this would have been something that the Board, including Schmidt, would have had knowledge of.Then they should be able to prove this in a lawsuit...along with your statements above this should be a slam dunk for Apple....
So, the evidence that Google acquired Android because Schmidt, while on the Apple Board, learned that Apple was going into the phone business, while circumstantial, is pretty damning. That's not to say that Apple would have a case in court. For that, they'd need documentation of what were likely private, verbal, unrecorded, undocumented discussions at Google. Everything the board does it recorded. Some of this is required in the meeting minutes by the companies themselves so of it is regulated by publicly traded companies.
Yet, the idea that Google's acquisition of Android around that time was merely coincidental, simply isn't credible.

Then, if we look at that early version of Android, it was clearly a copy of the Blackberry. That makes sense too, since the Apple Board would not have been given all the details of what the new phone would be like. The abrupt change to mimic iPhone after the announcement shows that Google realized they had gone down the wrong road.

It's also clear that, since the announcement of the iPhone, Google's strategy has been essentially the same as Samsung's: To copy the iPhone as closely as they can, to the point were they begin to throw things into it, like NFC, simply because it's rumored that Apple will be including it.

And this really shouldn't surprise anyone. It fits Google's MO exactly: Steal from others and give it away for free, using their dominance and revenues from search to leverage themselves into an ever widening circle of markets by destroying profitability for anyone else in those markets -- i.e., basic product dumping.

Anyone who thinks the reality of the situation is any different than described above, is drinking some powerful kool-aid, or being paid to pretend they believe Google's Android fairy tale story.

I am not a huge Google fan. I am just amazed at some of the outlandish statements made without any facts. I highlighted some of the things in your statements. I agree with you that Apple was working on the iPhone and IOS long before they released the product.....probably some years of R&D went into the finished product. Steve Jobs has been quoted as saying he felt Android was stolen product. That he would destroy it with all of Apple's cash reserves if that what it took. So if they had one iota of proof they would be in court suing Schmidt/Google.
I thought it was common practice or requirement for recording to be done anytime a board was in session. So it would make it easy for Apple to establish what information Schmidt knew and when he knew it and then what his actions were after he obtained this info. Even if it was not recored they would have documentation of ALL things he knew. I am sure that Apple would have had Schmidt/Google under a very powerful microscope as far as their actions were concerned. Apple has taken to the courts for just about everything where they feel slighted in anyway and to protect their IP or copyrights. They have sued have sued Mac clone makers to small companies using product likeness to Samsung with a shape and feel complaint. Why then would they not go after Schmidt/Google? They could with one action kill Android or at least have and injunction upon devices being released with it until the suit was heard in effect killing Android.

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

Ok so according to one of your previous posts, Apple is going after Android OEMs instead of Google themselves because it would be "easier" and faster. But it still doesn't make sense though. Android is clearly a stolen product (Jobs and his legion said so) and had violated countless Apple's touch input and other mobile software patents. It would be an easy win for Apple if that's the case. Why waste time and go after proxies when you can kill off Android in one giant lawsuit?

Wow, I guess you haven't been following FOSS, AI, other Apple news sites, bloggers and the press on this issue.

Apple has made a strategic decision to go after the manufacturers, who have a lot more to lose than Google, and often (like with HTC) have far fewer resources in terms of $$ and IP. Many if not most of Apple's IP suits against the manufacturer are in fact against Google's IP. Also, Apple can use the ITC which acts much quicker than the courts and will ban imports. Of course Google does not import anything so you can't use the ITC against them.

The effect will be the same with less effort, more speedy resolution, and greater likelihood of success for Apple.

Re proxy, the USA and USSR were bitter enemies for decades but never once fought a single battle against each other. However there were dozens of real wars by proxy that killed millions. The analogy is perfect.

I disagree with you...... Apple has alway gone after ANYONE that they felt violated their IP or copyrights. They have sued large and small companies alike. Apple has one of the largest legal staffs in the world for just these types of issues. Steve has come out and said he felt Android was stolen product. Why not sue then?
The highlight above does not fit this issue/thread at all.....a nuclear war between the US and Russia would have destroyed the WORLD! A lawsuit between Apple and Google does not even come close to rising to that level!

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

I thought it was common practice or requirement for recording to be done anytime a board was in session.

NOT a common practice, in fact, most companies and boards do not want their deliberations recorded. Only the minutes are the record.

In addition, it is very easy to imagine Jobs and Schmidt touring the labs (they were great friends, right?) while Jobs showed off all the new tech under development. Schmidt was on the board and a friend and peer of Steve's. Of course this wold never be recorded.

It was going to be a great partnership, almost a marriage. Thus Jobs' bitter hatred after the break-up.

I disagree with you...... Apple has alway gone after ANYONE that they felt violated their IP or copyrights. They have sued large and small companies alike. Apple has one of the largest legal staffs in the world for just these types of issues. Steve has come out and said he felt Android was stolen product. Why not sue then?
The highlight above does not fit this issue/thread at all.....a nuclear war between the US and Russia would have destroyed the WORLD! A lawsuit between Apple and Google does not even come close to rising to that level!

So, hello, what is your explanation?

Apple is suing over Google's IP. It will be more effective to sue the manufacturers. Who give a f*** how Apple goes after Google? What does it matter?

Oh, sure, and Apple wasn't working with Google (probably with Schmidt directly as he was Jobs' friend) on Maps, etc. for months if not years prior?

I agree with you. Google did wholesale theft of Apple's technology. I just pointed that out because it seemed that some people think that Schmidt had been in the board for years before the iPhone announcement.

NOT a common practice, in fact, most companies and boards do not want their deliberations recorded. Only the minutes are the record.

In addition, it is very easy to imagine Jobs and Schmidt touring the labs (they were great friends, right?) while Jobs showed off all the new tech under development. Schmidt was on the board and a friend and peer of Steve's.

It was going to be a great partnership, almost a marriage. Thus Jobs' bitter hatred after the break-up.

It is a requirement anytime a board is in session for everything to be recored. This is done either by video/audio or by a admin assistant in person at the meetings. Afterward the meeting minutes are distributed and posted for the all the board to see for clarity and context. Then the next meeting they review the minutes of the last meeting for context and to keep the discussions on point.
Again....if Apple had any evidence they would sue. They have done this over and over again.
Steve said he would spend Apple's billions destroying Android. If they had one shred of proof or discussion they could bring to court then they would.

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

If Android had violated (or stolen since that's what many people here are implying) that many of Apple's patents, then why are we not seeing a single lawsuit by Apple against Google? It would make more sense would it not? Why the need to waste time and go for proxies? It's Google themselves whom developed Android after all. It would be an easy win too since Android is clearly without a doubt, a stolen product according to Lord Jobs. And why isn't Schmidt prosecuted for violating his NDA and what amounts to corporate espionage from his stint at the Apple Board?

I keep hearing the same lines over and over again revolving around how Android stole everything from Apple. But until one of you can satisfactory explain to me as to why Apple isn't going after Google directly after basically copying everything, it will always be a baseless and unsubstantiated claim.

Your original question was "What did they steal exactly?" So I pointed that out to you in my previous post. Now you are asking a very different question. You are asking about Apple's legal strategy of attacking manufacturers instead of Google. Legal strategy is something I know nothing about. Apple's lawyers probably determined that the best way to attack Android was by going after the people who actually sell it. I don't know for sure.

Apple is suing over Google's IP. It will be more effective to sue the manufacturers. Who give a f*** how Apple goes after Google? What does it matter?

Well this has been a long thread and it is getting fragmented. It was originally stated that Schmidt stole Apple's IP and went then produces Android. That Apple was suing to stop Android. So why not go after the source? Why not Schmidt and Google? So why not kill Android at the source? They could in one fell swoop stop Android forever.
So if there was a MAC clone maker out there making clones of MacPros or installing OSX non Apple hardware.....would it make sense to go after the people that bought they clones? Or go after the company that was making the clones? For reference see the suit Apple made against Pystar. they shut the company down for making clones. they didn't sue the people who bought the clones. So why would they not go after Google for Android instead of going after Samsung, HTC, et al?
Why not go after the company (Google) that was making the infringing product?

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

Well this has been a long thread and it is getting fragmented. It was originally stated that Schmidt stole Apple's IP and went then produces Android. That Apple was suing to stop Android. So why not go after the source? Why not Schmidt and Google? So why not kill Android at the source? They could in one fell swoop stop Android forever.
So if there was a MAC clone maker out there making clones of MacPros or installing OSX non Apple hardware.....would it make sense to go after the people that bought they clones? Or go after the company that was making the clones? For reference see the suit Apple made against Pystar. they shut the company down for making clones. they didn't sue the people who bought the clones. So why would they not go after Google for Android instead of going after Samsung, HTC, et al?
Why not go after the company (Google) that was making the infringing product?

Because Apple decided there was a better way. More effective, more timely and less dangerous to Apple. Read FOSS on this topic.

Because Apple decided there was a better way. More effective, more timely and less dangerous to Apple. Read FOSS on this topic.

That does not make sense.......bringing multiple suits in multiple countries against multiple companies and exposes yourself to one bad ruling and jeopardize all of the other suits? They would lose millions upon millions with just one bad ruling from an un sympathetic judge. If they had evidence they would go after the source of the whole thing and stop Android at the source with Schmidt and Google.

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

So are we to assume this will come out with iOS 6.0 or will they debut it mid-iOS-cycle with the iPad 3? This would look mighty impressive on an iPad 3 with or without a HiDPI display, but this seems more like a feature for a new version of iOS.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Ok so according to one of your previous posts, Apple is going after Android OEMs instead of Google themselves because it would be "easier" and faster. But it still doesn't make sense though. Android is clearly a stolen product (Jobs and his legion said so) and had violated countless Apple's touch input and other mobile software patents. It would be an easy win for Apple if that's the case. Why waste time and go after proxies when you can kill off Android in one giant lawsuit?

Apple has a very talented legal team and they determined that this is the best way to start the war. It's like bombing the radar towers before you hit command & control. I am reasonable certain that the front lines will eventually arrive at Google's doorstep.

I will be interesting to see how smoothly the remotely sensed (aircraft) images transition to local (vehicle) images when zooming in on a subject, assuming Apple goes for a continuous zoom rather than a specific transition to a street view.

Apparently, C3 fleshes out its 3D arial views with 2D static images to make the total effect look realistic from any angle.

While watching some of the C3 overhead videos at macrumors I got the feeling:

Wouldn't it be cool to enhance the panning/zooming of still photos by adding animation: things like cars moving, people walking, waves on water... running a play in a soccer or football stadium... cheering crowds...

Think of the video game potential of this technology -- or for pilot training in flight simulators.

...maybe even add realism and animation to the Republican presidential debates...

...Nah... that's just not possible

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Apple will probably replace everything Google does—including search—as soon as they can do it effectively. I think when Steve Jobs said that he was pissed because Google went after the phone business but they didn't go after the phone business it was a clear message that Apple would be going after Google's core businesses. Maps will probably come first and then full search after Siri leaves beta. They may even use the Siri name as their search brand. One can't be sure what Apple's going to do but with Jobs as mad as he was at Google you can bet they're going to do something.

I think you're right. It's the only way to deal with a company like Google that still sees the world through old internet goggles--a place where everyone's hard work is free for the taking. Fight fire with fire. Even if Apple gets only a portion of Google's business, the message will have been sent. Nothing is free; there is a price to pay.

What is really sad is believing that Schmidt stole from Apple while on their board........having access to all that information.....signing all those non disclosure agreements. Apple being aware of all this so they would be able to know EXACTLY what information he had and what could come from Google that even came close! Do you not think they had a legal team watching every step Schmidt made while on their board? Do you think Apple so naive? Do you not think Apple scrutinized ALL of his actions and every move he made? So tell me then why hasn't Apple taken Schmidt to court???? They have sued everyone else to protect their intellectual property...why not sue him? Because they can't prove anything...or else they would! If Schmidt stole ideas from Apple then where are they?

Steve was there, you were not. Who knows more about what happened, you sitting in Arizona or the guy in the room? Steve said it was stolen. I think his view has slightly more cred than yours.

Your original question was "What did they steal exactly?" So I pointed that out to you in my previous post. Now you are asking a very different question. You are asking about Apple's legal strategy of attacking manufacturers instead of Google. Legal strategy is something I know nothing about. Apple's lawyers probably determined that the best way to attack Android was by going after the people who actually sell it. I don't know for sure.

Oh no it was quite relevant you see. Perhaps Apple didn't go after Google after all as they don't have a case against Android as a whole? If that's the case, then the common assertion that Google stole everything from Apple goes out the window. Why resist the easy win and kill off Android once and for all since the opportunity presents? The lawsuits against Android OEMs like Samsung are a tad different actually. For example, the single patent Samsung was found guilty of infringing in the Netherlands relates to some "bouncy" effect in Samsung's Touchwiz Gallery app. They have since rectified that.

So let's drop the ridiculous claim that Android is a completely stolen product of Apple shall we?

Steve was there, you were not. Who knows more about what happened, you sitting in Arizona or the guy in the room? Steve said it was stolen. I think his view has slightly more cred than yours.

I am not disputing or disagreeing with that.....re read my comments throughout the WHOLE thread.....
What does your statement have to do with anything that was discussed in the thread? You weren't there yet you are making statements....

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

... Perhaps Apple didn't go after Google after all as they don't have a case against Android as a whole? ... So let's drop the ridiculous claim that Android is a completely stolen product of Apple shall we?

Again, I am not a lawyer. I don't know legal strategy. Android is not a completely stolen product. Only parts of Android use patented Apple technology and patented Oracle technology.

Evidence continues to point to Apple actively developing a 3D mapping surface through a combination of acquisitions and in-house development, with recent rumors suggesting that the iPhone maker has acquired a Swedish 3D mapping company.

Any and all new mapping solutions are eagerly anticipated by me.

However, I wonder if it might have been better for a more open company to have bought out the Swedes. I fear that any solution Apple implements will be restricted to use on Apple products, unlike Google and M$'s approach, which seems to be open to licensing.

So are we to assume this will come out with iOS 6.0 or will they debut it mid-iOS-cycle with the iPad 3? This would look mighty impressive on an iPad 3 with or without a HiDPI display, but this seems more like a feature for a new version of iOS.

HiDPI and 3D mapping... what sort of horsepower would that take? It sounds like the iPad will really need that 20nm tech being developed by TSMC to prolong battery life.

The problem is Google still has the most extensive streetview data because they've been collecting it for years.

Like someone above, I don't use streetview all that much but it's a nice to have for many folks.

I really like to use Google Streeview. It's great for casing out neighborhoods and security. Honestly, before I go anywhere in NYC I usually check out where things are located by using street view so I can get familiar with landmarks and such. It's a shame that Apple has so much money and doesn't do the sort of stuff that Google routinely does. Apple has enough money to launch some freaking military style satellites to grab visual ground data that should easily surpass what Google maps already has.

Even using just a tiny, tiny part of that $81 billion dollars for mapping services could really do a lot for Apple device users considering Apple doesn't want to give anything back to shareholders directly. I truly don't understand why Google can afford to do these services and Apple can't. High-definition mapping would be such a huge content draw unique to Apple devices which could really drive sales.

However, I wonder if it might have been better for a more open company to have bought out the Swedes. I fear that any solution Apple implements will be restricted to use on Apple products, unlike Google and M$'s approach, which seems to be open to licensing.

That is the main advantage Apple has over their competitors - high quality integration of apps, services and devices. They are in a race to build out the ecosystem and making theirs proprietary is the opposite strategy from Google who knows that would never work for them since everything they release is half baked. Google has to give Android away since they could never compete if they had to sell it.

The one exception is maps where Google is ahead of everyone else. That said, I still think the interface to Google maps is complete garbage. If Apple had access to the same amount of data I'm sure they could come up with a much nicer app. For people who really rely on maps for their daily usage, Android and Google maps makes sense, but for the large majority of common mobile computing tasks Apple has them beat by a mile.

For the sake of the consumer, I wish those two compnies could work together but at this point that seems impossible.

So are we to assume this will come out with iOS 6.0 or will they debut it mid-iOS-cycle with the iPad 3? This would look mighty impressive on an iPad 3 with or without a HiDPI display, but this seems more like a feature for a new version of iOS.

The demo videos indicate that the C3 technology performs well on the current iDevices (as does Siri, apparently).

I think it may come sooner rather than later -- iOS 6 that is! There are structural changes to iOS that are necessary to enable Apple to open up Siri to developers -- inter-app communication and system/app sandboxing, for 2 examples. This technology already exists in Mac OS X -- but has not, yet, been migrated to iOS,

I suspect that Apple will not be able to get a 9.7" display with Retina density in adequate quantities for a 1-2 Q release of an iPad 3.

If that is true, then Apple may choose to release a higher-PPI display that is not an integer multiple of the iPhone 4/4S.

This too, would require some system-wide changes to iOS -- resolution-independence, for one.

Then, there is this whole AirPlay AppleTV iOS thingie -- we're only on the second page of chapter 1 with this technology.

Imagine multiple players playing a game on their iPads to the AppleTV -- or just between iPads.

Then extrapolate what this could mean in the classroom, lecture hall, meeting room, operating room, etc.

And, I want a touch-manipulatable "Back To My Lion (Mac)" on my iPad.

I believe that iOS 6 development is well underway -- and suspect we'll see a developer preview/beta SDK in January-February 2012... along with an iPad 3 announce/ship.

...It is very important for iOS to get and hold the major attention and efforts of 3rd-party developers.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

It is a requirement anytime a board is in session for everything to be recored. This is done either by video/audio or by a admin assistant in person at the meetings. Afterward the meeting minutes are distributed and posted for the all the board to see for clarity and context. Then the next meeting they review the minutes of the last meeting for context and to keep the discussions on point.
Again....if Apple had any evidence they would sue. They have done this over and over again.
Steve said he would spend Apple's billions destroying Android. If they had one shred of proof or discussion they could bring to court then they would.

Are you a lawyer? I own my own corporation and neither my corporate attorney or accountant told me to tape record any Audio/Visual portions of any meetings I ever have (and I do have multiple shareholders whom I hold meetings with).

You need to "record" one meeting per year, where you write down the attendance and that you all resolved to continue operations. But this is just all in writing it is not an actual recording of the actual meeting. It says something like "In attendance are X, Y, and Z. It is resolved by unanimous vote to re-elect all the officers, and continue operations... blah blah blah" You aren't actually transcribing any conversations here.

Boards can also have informal meetings where they can get together and talk about things without recording anything. As someone who has dealt with not just my own company but other people's companies I can tell you that recording things people say in corporate meetings all the time is just about never practiced, and it is certainly not a requirement. It is also not uncommon for a board members of a company to give a prospective investor/advisor a tour of the company and show things off. Or for two board members to visit departments and see what they are up to. None of this again is recorded.

I like how all of a sudden everyday people turn into corporate lawyers and business executives when a discussion of something related comes up.

If you say its a requirement that the meetings audio/video be recorded, post proof (i.e. the statute or regulation that states this).

Also, the idea that a company would know literally EVERYTHING a person on its board had known or been exposed to is absurd. There may be some records about certain things, if they attended some meetings where attendance was taken, but the idea that literally everything gets recorded is completely insane. They dont have a team of lawyers and bodyguards following every executive around, despite what some people believe here.